Download - EFFECTIVENESS OF A FARM FIELD TRIP
University of Kentucky University of Kentucky
UKnowledge UKnowledge
Theses and Dissertations--Community & Leadership Development Community & Leadership Development
2014
EFFECTIVENESS OF A FARM FIELD TRIP EFFECTIVENESS OF A FARM FIELD TRIP
Bonnie S. Sigmon University of Kentucky, [email protected]
Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you.
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Sigmon, Bonnie S., "EFFECTIVENESS OF A FARM FIELD TRIP" (2014). Theses and Dissertations--Community & Leadership Development. 11. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cld_etds/11
This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Community & Leadership Development at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Community & Leadership Development by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected].
STUDENT AGREEMENT: STUDENT AGREEMENT:
I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution
has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining
any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s)
from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing
electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be
submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File.
I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and
royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of
media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made
available immediately for worldwide access unless an embargo applies.
I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use in
future works (such as articles or books) all or part of my work. I understand that I am free to
register the copyright to my work.
REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE
The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student’s advisor, on
behalf of the advisory committee, and by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), on behalf of
the program; we verify that this is the final, approved version of the student’s thesis including all
changes required by the advisory committee. The undersigned agree to abide by the statements
above.
Bonnie S. Sigmon, Student
Dr. Rebekah Epps, Major Professor
Dr. Rosalind Harris, Director of Graduate Studies
EFFECTIVENESS OF A FARM FIELD TRIP
————————————————————
THESIS
————————————————————
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a degree of Master of Science in the
College of Agriculture, Food and Environment.
By
Bonnie S. Sigmon
Lexington, Kentucky
Director: Dr. Rebekah Epps, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Education
Lexington, Kentucky
2014
Copyright © Bonnie S. Sigmon 2014
ABSTRACT OF THESIS
EFFECTIVENESS OF A FARM FIELD TRIP
The annual Sigmon Farm Tour was started in 1992 as an agricultural education program where students could experience being on a farm with the goal of increasing the agricultural literacy levels of the participants. Every year the entire 4th grade student population of Rockcastle County spends the day touring the farm and participating in experiential mini lessons given by the cooperating farm service and health agencies. The program has continued for 20+ years without an evaluation as to whether it is achieving its objectives. This evaluation will also exhibit the programs strengths and weakness so it can continue to improve. This study utilized the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest to ascertain the agricultural literacy level of the student before the fieldtrip, after participating in the field trip and again 90 days later.
KEYWORDS: Agricultural Literacy, Field Trip, Experiential Learning, Fourth Grade, Farm Tour
Bonnie S. Sigmon
March 28, 2014
EFFECTIVENESS OF A FARM FIELD TRIP
By
Bonnie S. Sigmon
Dr. Rebekah Epps Director of Thesis
Dr. Rosalind Harris Director of Graduate Studies
March 28, 2014
Dedicated to my parents, Bill and Nancy Sigmon whose love of children and agriculture has reached students for over 20 years and taught me that once you get dirt in your boots it is impossible to get it out. To my husband and sister who are my partners through the droughts and floods. To my daughters who have learned the hard way that you do what you have to do, when you have to do it but also have learned to love this truly God given
way of life.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following thesis, while an individual work, benefited from the insights and
direction of several people. First, my Thesis Chair, Dr. Rebekah Epps, exemplifies the
high quality scholarship to which I aspire. In addition, Dr. Epps provided timely and
instructive comments and evaluation at every stage of the thesis process, allowing me to
complete this project on schedule. Next I wish to thank the complete Thesis Committee:
Dr. Richard Maurer and Dr. Stacy Vincent. Each individual provided insights that guided
and challenged my thinking, substantially improving the finished project.
In addition to the technical and instrument assistance above, I received equally
important assistance from family and friends. I wish to thank the tour organizers,
presenters, and volunteers that have ever assisted in making the farm tour a success,
whether they drove tractors, flipped hamburgers or gave monetary donations. Finally, I
want to thank the school superintendents, principals, teachers and students who have
participated in the farm tour for making this process simple and enjoyable.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List Of Tables ............................................................................................................................... v List Of Figures ............................................................................................................................. vi Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 9 Agricultural Literacy ............................................................................................................... 9 Experiential Learning ............................................................................................................ 14 Informal Education ................................................................................................................ 16 Field Trips .............................................................................................................................. 17 Chapter Three: Methodology ..................................................................................................... 20 Timeline ................................................................................................................................. 21 Population .............................................................................................................................. 22 Instrument .............................................................................................................................. 22 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................. 25 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 25 Chapter Five: Conclusion, Recommendations, And Implications .............................................. 32 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 32 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 33 Implications............................................................................................................................ 37 Appendices Appendix A: Logic Model .................................................................................................... 41 Appendix B: IRB Approval .................................................................................................. 42 Appendix C: Assent Form .................................................................................................... 43 Appendix D: Parental Permission ......................................................................................... 44 Appendix E: Literacy Instruments ........................................................................................ 45 Appendix F: Construct Questions ......................................................................................... 57 Appendix G: Panel Of Experts.............................................................................................. 58 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 59 Vita ............................................................................................................................................. 67
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Test Score Means and Standard Deviation ....................................................... 26
Table 4.2 Effect Size of Pre/Post/Delay Tests .................................................................. 27
Table 4.3 Percentage of Constructs Correct on Pre/Post/Delay Tests .............................. 28
Table 4.4 S.N.A.P. Ed. Question Results .......................................................................... 29
Table 4.5 How Thinking Was Changed ............................................................................ 30
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Cyclical and Spiral Experiential Learning Framework .................................... 6
Figure 3.1: Flow Chart of Events ...................................................................................... 22
Figure 4.1: Flow Chart of Events ..................................................................................... 25
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In 1992 Tom Mills, the University of Kentucky County Cooperative Extension
Agent for Agriculture, came to the Sigmon farm to do a farm visit. He and Dad talked
about the fact that farmers were getting older, that most of the younger generations had
never been on a farm and that even less understood that agriculture was where their food
came from. My father wanted to give students the chance to experience being on a farm
so he offered our farm to be used as a location for an agricultural education program. It
was from that conversation that the annual Sigmon Farm Tour came into existence. The
tour has changed and developed over the last twenty years but the main goal of the tour
was and still is to educate students about the importance of agriculture and natural
resources.
The first year 180 5th graders from all three of the county elementary schools
loaded onto farm wagons for a hayride around the farm with stops at different locations
for 20 minute mini lessons from the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife, United
States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service, Kentucky
Department of Forestry and the University of Kentucky Extension Service. The students
brought their own bagged lunches and enjoyed a picnic on the farm. Today the students
that attend are 4th graders; they still take a hayride around the farm stopping for mini
lessons. We have added stops about nutrition, by the local health department; hospital
and beekeeping along with an observation hive by the local beekeepers association. The
lunch is now prepared on the farm with the stops directly referencing the items on the
menu to the crops the children see.
2
Every year we ask the same question at some point, “What is something you eat
or wear that does not come from a farm?” The answers vary from the extreme nothing to
any type of food and clothing imaginable. The one food that has remained a constant on
the list of foods that do not come from a farm is pizza. Students seem more apt at
understanding that unprocessed food items such as tomatoes and corn come from a farm
but when you start to process those basic ingredients into other forms and combine them
into common foods the connection is lost. There seems to be an ever widening gap in
perception between what parents and guardians purchase at the store and where food and
clothing comes from.
Agriculture is defined as the cultivation of animals, plants, fungi, and other life
forms for food, fiber, biofuel, drugs and other products used to sustain and enhance
human life (Agriculture, 2014). This definition is generally accepted by most people
without another thought as to the impact those 25 words has on each of us every day.
Hunting and gathering was the only sources of food and substance for man before
agriculture. Agriculture provides us with our food to nourish our body, fiber for our
clothing, materials for our shelter and raw materials for manufacturing. This important
economic, political and life–sustaining system’s foundation is and will remain the farm.
There are over 308 million people living in the United States (United States Census
Bureau 2010). Of that population, less than 1% claim farming as an occupation and about
2% actually live on farms (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2013).
The concept of agricultural literacy was introduced in “Understanding Agriculture
– New Directions for Education” (Committee on Agricultural Education in Secondary
Schools, 1988). The committee developed the goal “agricultural literacy” for agricultural
3
education. There has been a lot of work done concerning the idea of agricultural literacy.
The committee recommended that every student should receive, beginning in
kindergarten or first grade all the way through twelfth grade, some systematic agricultural
instruction (Council, 1988). Frick, Kahler and Miller in 1991 stated: “Agricultural
literacy can be defined as possessing knowledge and understanding of our food and fiber
system. An individual possessing such knowledge would be able to synthesize, analyze,
and communicate basic information about agriculture.”(p.52).
“As our global population grows to a projected nine billion people by 2050, the
non-agriculture population has little to no understanding of the complexities involved
with sustaining a viable agriculture system” (Doerfert, 2011, p. 8). An agriculturally
literate population helps in ensuring intelligent and informed decisions concerning
agricultural policies are made that benefit society (Pope, 1990). Without the basic
knowledge of how all aspects of agriculture are linked together and the science and
technology that makes up the worlds food system how can we as a society sustain our
world food system?
Food deserts are defined as places without ready access to fresh, healthy, and
affordable food; a one-mile distance to healthy food access was used (Food Deserts,
2013). There are an estimated 23.5 million people in the U.S. living in food deserts with
more than half of those people (13.5 million) being low income according to the United
States Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (2013). To further refine
the actual number of people affected by food deserts in rural areas, a 10- mile marker is
used to consider food access instead of one-mile. In rural areas the population is more
sparsely distributed and vehicle ownership is higher than in urban areas. In rural areas
2.3 million people live in low-income areas that are more than 10 miles from a
4
supermarket (Michele Ver Ploeg, 2009). “Millions of Americans living in food deserts
also face higher levels of food insecurity, increasing the number of low- and moderate-
income families without access to enough food to sustain healthy, active lives” (Creating
Access to Healthy, Affordable Food, 2010).
Residents of these communities are typically served by fast food restaurants and
convenience stores that offer little to no fresh food. Health food options are hard to find
or are unaffordable frequently in these communities (Michele Ver Ploeg, 2009).
Healthier foods are generally more expensive than unhealthy foods, particularly in food
deserts. For instance, while the overall price of fruits and vegetables in the US increased
by nearly 75 percent between 1989 and 2005, the price of fatty foods dropped by more
than 26 percent during the same period (Walsh, 2008).
Our current food system relies heavily on America’s infrastructure and their trade
policies. The food that we enjoy on our plate has traveled on average 1,500 miles from
the producer to your home with some traveling from foreign countries (Pirog, 2001). In
America we enjoy the safest and cheapest food supply in the world. We can travel to the
local supermarket and enjoy a wide array of fresh fruits and vegetables and aisle after
aisle of convenient processed foods from around the world. This diversity and
convenience does come cheap but it comes at a price of lower nutritional value. Fresh
foods are harvested before optimum ripeness and nutritional value so it can be
transported to the processing center to be processed into convenient ready use products or
to your supermarket (Mesenburg, 2013).
5
The knowledge to be able to grow and produce your own fruits and vegetables
used to be a skill passed on from generation to generation. The population as a whole is
two to three generations removed from the ultimate source of their food and clothing, a
farm (Doerfert, 2011). Fifty years ago, students were expected to help on the family farm
during the summer months so public school years’ vacations were scheduled around
agriculture. Students helped on the family farm providing labor and in return learned
science and biology fundamentals through that experience. The general population of
today lacks the knowledge and skills to grow their own food. The square foot gardening
technique, vertical gardening and patio container gardens address the lack of property to
raise your own food but little has been done to address the lack of skill. The ability to
plant a seed and grow your own food is a need for all people to be able to make the link
between us as humans and nature as a whole. We take for granted the natural processes
that allow us to thrive while we are busy manipulating every other aspect of the world
around us. Over the past 100 years the importance of our natural resources, there
connection to agriculture and our ultimate connection to earth have slowly slipped from
our view. Programs that strive to increase the agricultural literacy of students make every
effort to highlight the interconnectedness of agriculture and our technologically advanced
society that relies on agriculture.
Banking or “student-as-sponge” model is the more traditional theory to teaching
and learning but it marginalizes knowledge stemming from personal life experiences
(Jakubowski, 2003). It has been said that all learning is experiential (Dewey, 1963).
Parents all over the world have told their children in some terms or another “Don’t touch
that it’s hot”, but can we really understand “hot” if we never experience it for ourselves?
6
Science education is full of opportunities for experiential learning. Experiential learning
emphasizes the role that experience plays in the learning process, an emphasis that
differentiates it from other learning theories. Experiential learning theory defines
learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of
experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 38). Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) has steadily
gained acceptance and popularity in education and serves as an invaluable resource for
teaching and learning (Kolb, 2006). Experiential learning is a process that is on-going in
a spiral-like pattern.
Figure 1.1: Cyclical and spiral experiential learning framework (based on the model
illustrated in Knowles & Cole, 1996).
Experiential learning begins with an initial focus of the learner, followed by the
initial experience. Learners then reflect on their observation or experience and formulate
generalizations. Using these generalizations, the learner eventually has the experience
again and tests these generalizations with experimentation. The learner then further
reflects and revises the generalizations leading to further experimentation (Roberts,
2006). The point is to place students in a direct relationship with the material being
7
studied. Students rather than being told the answers to questions are actively engaged
exploring things for themselves. A student being actively engaged does not necessarily
mean that they are up running around and doing. It means that the mind is actively
engaged. Not all experiences are physical activities.
“Good experiential learning combines direct experience that is meaningful to the student with guided reflection and analysis. It is a challenging, active, student-centered process that impels students toward opportunities for taking initiative, responsibility, and decision making. …Experiential education engages the learner emotionally” (Chapman, 1992, p. 20).
Based upon the model of experiential learning context field trips can be an
effective experiential learning activity (Roberts, 2006).
The field trip is one of the most complex and expensive activities in the
educational system. A field trip should be planned as an integral part of the curriculum
rather than as an isolated activity (Orion, 1994). Recent studies (Gretzel, 2008; Wong,
2008; Sanders, 2008) have reported fieldtrips to have enhanced students’ learning and
increased their practical knowledge. The role of field trips in the learning process is
beneficial, especially when concrete learning experiences are combined with higher
levels of cognitive learning. Field trips can provide direct sensory motor experiences to
help students with the construction of abstract concepts and can enhance meaningful
learning (Orion, 1993). A study of the cognitive impact of a field trip that was part of an
integral science curriculum, found that students gained in knowledge. Even more
impressive was that there was less than a half-point loss in the mean score after retesting
the students three months later (Morrell, 2003).
8
In the natural progression of the annual Sigmon Farm Tour, I have evolved into
the coordinator role not only due to the age of my father, but I am now a University of
Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service Agent. In my role as an extension agent, it has
become clear that the program cannot continue to ask for support, funding, and resources
without a program evaluation justifying the results. Can a field trip to a farm increase the
agricultural literacy of a fourth grade student? It is important to know if what we have
been doing for 20 years has had an effect on the students that participate and if not, what
we can modify to see that it does. This research study will evaluate the effect of the trip
on students’ agricultural literacy levels and it will give much needed feedback to the
organizers, sponsors, and presenters on the true value of the program. We cannot
improve until we know where we are in the effectiveness of the program.
There are two research objectives for this study. They are as follows:
1. Determine the cognitive effects of the field trip experience on the
participating students by their scores on an agricultural literacy test.
2. Determine what aspects of the field trip need to be redesigned to be a more
effective field experience for fourth graders on fiber and food products.
9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
This quasi-experimental study’s purpose is to evaluate if the experiential learning
activities during a farm field trip have a cognitive effect on the participating 4th grade
students agricultural literacy level. Once this is determined the findings will be used to
assess the field trip and recommendations given that may improve the students’ learning.
This literature review will cover studies that have been conducted since the publication of
Understanding Agriculture-New Directions for Education (1988) that recognized the
need for some form of agricultural education for all students from K-12.
AGRICULTURAL LITERACY
The concept of agricultural literacy was introduced in “Understanding Agriculture
– New Directions for Education” (Council, 1988). The committee was established at the
request of the U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture and Education by The National Research
Council. The purpose of the council was to assess the contributions of education in
agriculture to the maintenance and improvement of U.S. agricultural productivity and
economics competitiveness here and abroad. The committee was assigned the task of
offering recommendations regarding: goals for the instruction of agriculture, the subject
matter and skills that should be stressed in curricula for different groups of students; and
policy changes needed at the local, state and national levels to facilitate the new revised
agricultural education programs in secondary schools (Council, 1988). The committee
developed the goal for students to reach an “agricultural literacy” level for education
about agriculture. The committee declared that educating just a small percentage of
students who were interested about agriculture was leaving students grossly lacking in the
knowledge of agriculture. Agriculture was too important of a topic. The committee
recommended that every student should receive, beginning in kindergarten or first grade
10
all the way through twelfth grade, some systematic agricultural instruction (Council,
1988).
The goal of agricultural education was now being defined as agricultural literacy.
Stewart (1989) and Russell, Miller and McCracken (1990) stated that the substantive
nature of the term was yet to be established and questioned how much of what
information made one agriculturally literate. Frick, Kahler and Miller (1991) surveyed
100 faculty members of land-grant universities and compiled their responses into a
definition of agricultural literacy until a consensus was reached. The panelists’ definition
of agricultural literacy follows:
“Agricultural literacy can be defined as possessing knowledge and understanding of our food and fiber system. An individual possessing such knowledge would be able to synthesize, analyze, and communicate basic information about agriculture. Basic agricultural information includes: the production of plant and animal products, the economic impact of agriculture, its societal significance, agriculture’s important relationship with natural resources and the environment, the marketing of agricultural products, the processing of agricultural products, public agricultural policies, the global significance of agriculture, and the distribution of agricultural products.” (p. 52).
In 1999, the National Council for Agricultural Education (1999) defined goals for
literacy in terms of a person becoming “conversationally” literate about agriculture, while
Meischen and Trexler (2003) broadened the definition of agricultural literacy to include
science and technology related concepts “required for personal decision making,
participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity” (p. 44) manifested
through public debate. As the definition of agricultural literacy continues to evolve, so
shall its content and concepts.
11
With a generally accepted definition of agricultural literacy, research began to be
conducted, and has continued for over two decades. Research has targeted two emergent
theme populations in its synthesis: students and teachers. The highest frequency of
teachers studied has been elementary or K-12 teachers. Agriculture literacy research
studies targeted more elementary students than middle or high school students.
Barton, Koch, Contento and Hagiwara’s 2005, “From Global Sustainability to
Inclusive Education: Understanding Urban Children’s Ideas about Food Systems” noted
that most children gained their knowledge and understanding of the food system from the
television or home rather than school. As Moore (1995) illustrates, children will be the
ones making the decisions in the future so they must be taught the “daily lessons of
nature” (p.68).
Studies have shown that elementary school students are at the age that is most
likely to be receptive to influence of their beliefs and attitudes about agriculture and the
food system (Balschweid, 2002; Braverman, 1991; Hubert, 2000). According to Eric
Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development, school aged children (6-10 years old)
experience task identification, are enthusiastic learners, and are inquisitive about
everyday surroundings and events (Erikson, 1968). “K-3 are probably the most
influential” according to Hubert’s (2000) study about agricultural literacy in the
classroom from grades K-12 (p. 530). Studies by Monk, Norwood, and Guthrie (2000),
Morrell (2003), and Luthman, Ewing, and Whittington (2007) found that elementary
students who participated in experiential agricultural events made significant increases in
agricultural literacy after participation. These findings are supported by Ricketts and
12
Place (2005), who reported that hands-on activities make students more receptive to
learning.
The development of The Food and Fiber Systems Literacy Framework by Liesing
and Zilbert (1994) explained the knowledge that an agriculturally literate high school
graduate should possess. The Food and Fiber System used standards in five thematic
areas gleaning components necessary for understanding the way food and fiber systems
affect daily life. The standards were broken down into benchmarks for grade groups: K-
1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, providing a systematic route of agricultural literacy. The Food and Fiber
System Literacy Framework was designed to infuse agricultural concepts into existing
curriculum through science and social connections. It is important that students not only
learn about agricultural production and earth science but also agricultural technologies,
alternative production methods, and local and urban agriculture (Luckey, 2013).
Two research studies have shown that students who received instruction in
science using agricultural and natural resource examples performed equally or better than
students taught using traditional science examples (Enderlin, 1991; Whent, 1988).
Though these studies have shown that we are increasing agricultural literacy a study by
Pense and Leising (2004) assessed the agricultural literacy of Oklahoma high school
students using the Food and Fiber System Literacy Framework found that students
remain agriculturally illiterate. This study also found that students attending rural
schools scored lower than the urban or suburban students in three of the five standards.
According to these studies all schools rural, urban and suburban are still failing at
achieving agriculturally literate students.
13
Educating students in agricultural literacy ultimately begins with the teacher. A
teachers’ attitude, knowledge, skill, and confidence with the curriculum have a positive
correlation with the use of the curriculum (Rudd, 1995). Malecki, Isreal, and Toro (2004)
defined integration of agricultural literacy into the curriculum as “the purposeful
integration of agricultural topics into the mandated curriculum…as natural
interdisciplinary linkages” (p. 2). Integration of agricultural material into existing
curricula is hindered because of the staff’s inexperience and unfamiliarity with
agriculture and teaching “outdoors” (Trexler, 2001). The experiences of teachers directly
influence the information that is taught and presented to students (Humphrey, 1994).
Teachers need more professional development opportunities on how to develop activities,
identify resources, and connect agricultural topics to learning standards to feel more
comfortable integrating agriculture (Knobloch, 2003).
Many educators including elementary educators agree that agriscience and
natural resources are excellent examples to use when teaching science (Knobloch, 2000).
Even with such positive attitudes toward integrating agriscience and natural resources
into traditional science curriculum, studies still show that instructors integrated
agricultural lessons into existing coursework less than 20 times a year (Bellah, 2007).
Conflicting studies on the correlation between the number of connections to agriculture
made by teachers and the agricultural literacy of students have been found. Igo, Leising,
and Frick (1999) found a positive relationship between increased student knowledge and
the number of connections to agricultural literacy, while Leising, Pense, and Igo (2001)
found no correlation using much the same framework. Enderlin and Osborne (1991)
compared middle school students’ science achievement with traditional science
instruction and an agricultural laboratory approach. The agricultural laboratory approach
14
students received higher scores than the traditional students. Rasmussen, Spielmaker,
Warnick, and Monhardt (2008) summed it up, “In an era of school accountability and
high stakes testing it can be challenging for teachers to incorporate any curriculum not
specified by their school into their classes” (pg. 2).
EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
Experience is an important component of constructivist theories of learning.
Constructivists suggest that learners are “adapting to their environment in terms of their
understanding of a phenomenon or changes in their social world” (Fenwick, 2003, p. 46)
Social constructivism states that learners are their own creators of knowledge and reality
from experience within a social, interactive environment. The same is true for
transformational learning (Mezirow, 1978) where the catalyst in an “interaction” is the
learner’s past experiences. It is from this framework that researchers have learned that
experiences can be extremely different and irrational. This erratic individualization of
experiences is why critical reflection and dialogue are necessary tools for constructivism
and the creation of knowledge through learner experiences (Mezirow, 1991).
Prior experiences are building blocks for learning in both andragogy and self-
directed learning theories (Knowles, 1980). However some types of experiences have
little to no use in learning transactions (Dewey, 1938, Mezirow, 1995). Experience can
either be “the shapeless, per-linguistic product of unmediated sensory input” or a socially
constructed outcome (Michelson, 1996). Research on automaticity, conducting daily
activities on “auto pilot” without conscious awareness or intention, helps to explain why
all experiences are not educational (Bargh and Chartrand, 1999). Dewey (1938) also
warned that not all experiences educate and that some experiences “mis-educate” and
“distort growth” which “narrows the field of further experiences” (Dewey 1938, p. 13).
15
Dewey argues that learning experiences must exhibit two properties: (a) “continuity”, that
consists of experiences that have come previously and which affect the experiences that
come in the future, and (b) “interaction”, that occurs between the surroundings and an
individual (Dewey, 1938, p. 41)
Experiential learning theory defines learning as "the process whereby knowledge
is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the
combination of grasping and transforming experience" (Kolb 1984, p. 41). An
individual’s learning is affected by one’s culture, social setting, or community.
Experiential education leaders believe that learning cannot be understood outside of its
context (Fenwick, 2003). According to one experiential theory, situational theory
believes that learning is anchored in the “situation” in which the experience is occurring
but other experiential learning theories assign more importance on the individual
(DiFrancesco, 2011). Knowledge for the learner, according to transformational learning
theory “does not exist in books or in the experience of the educator, it exists only in the
learner’s ability to construe and reconstrue the meaning of an experience in his or her
own terms” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 45).
Experiential education is not simply an activity but directly and enthusiastically
engages the student in real learning. This requires students being actively engaged,
exploring things for themselves, in a direct relationship with the material not just being
told the answers. Bailey et al. (2004) stated “the person does not simply undergo an
experience, but participates in it, constructing meaning as it evolves” (p. 30).
Experiential learning can be regarded as a continuous cycle. Learners are engaged in
learning followed by a concrete experience upon which they develop observations and
reflections. Following this reflective observation period learners construct abstract
16
concepts to guide future actions. Once developed, the learners actively test their
constructs in new experiences that renew the learning cycle (Barker, 2002). The teacher
takes on the role of coach and is asked to believe that the students can draw valid and
meaningful conclusions from their own experiences (Chapman, 1992). When a teacher
directs student reflection by telling the students what they learned, they are not required
to or expected to think for themselves about the experience. Therefore, they are not
empowered to learn how to learn from their experiences (Estes & Tomb, 1995).
Students need experiences outside of the classroom to motivate a more active learning
process and a love of learning (Garrity, 2010). Gardner (1991) stated
“In the course of their careers in the American schools of today, most students take hundreds, if not thousands, of tests. They develop skill to a highly calibrated degree in an exercise that will essentially become useless immediately after their last day in school” (p. 216).
INFORMAL EDUCATION
Informal education is generally defined as learning that occurs outside of the
school setting. Different types of informal learning include field trips, students projects,
service learning, community based projects, casual visits to learning centers, and the
press and electronic media (Hofstein, 1996). Informal education that involves an
individual’s interaction with his/her environment is sometimes more efficient than formal
education in the process of behavior change and acquiring new behaviors (Wellington,
1990). Informal learning environments are effective in helping students gain cognitive,
emotional and psychomotor behaviors (Tal, 2009; Ballantyne, 2009). Learners in
informal settings are involved frequently in inquiry-based active learning situations that
focus on student-centered critical thinking and problem solving tasks. Learners play a
lead role in knowledge construction (Meiers, 2010).
17
FIELD TRIPS
Fieldtrips are an important part of informal education. They help students explore
their environment and establish links between the information learned in the classroom
and the real world. Students use all their senses during fieldtrips, the learning becomes
more permanent (Balliel, 2011). Fieldtrips provide the most realistic means for meeting
in their actual environments, new organisms. Students are able to gain first-hand
information, and employ various senses to see, touch, and feel what they have read and
heard about in the classroom (Patrick, 2010). Mader (2000) and Ajaja (2007) state that
scientists look at the world in observation to determine principles of how it works much
like the observation during a fieldtrip. Fieldtrips can enhance understanding of subject
materials that attributes to positive pedagogical outcomes for students (Pawson, 2002). It
has been proven that significant cognitive learning can and does occur on science field
trips and that the information is not immediately forgotten and may be remembered for a
long time (Hofstein, 1996). A key benefit in fieldtrip learning is the transfer of
knowledge between students. Students with prior experiences share their knowledge
with other students and the experiences serves to connect the group (Goh, 2011).
Field trips that include agricultural education seem to increase the agricultural
literacy of student participants. A recent study assessing the impact of an AgVenture
program at the 2011 Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo revealed a significant change in
knowledge at the .006 level after a paired sample t-test. The perceptions of the same
participants concerning the agricultures affecting their daily lives and the belief that
agriculture was important to their community both had a positive increase of 27%
(Luckey, 2013). The University of Maine Cooperative Extension’s 3 a Day Dairy
Project focused on the entire dairy production process, from farm to table, including field
18
trips to a dairy farm and agriculture day at the local county fair. The participating
students exhibited a 70% improvement in their ability to identify three healthy benefits of
consuming three servings of dairy foods daily. Student also demonstrated an increase in
the ability to identify dairy production techniques (Savoie, 2006).
The Sigmon Farm Tour is definitely an experiential learning field trip where that
the students get to use all of their senses to experience a farm. The students get to spend
time observing, touching, and smelling the different farm animals. For most of the
students is a new experience in itself. The aroma of the barn lot area is always an intense
discussion among the students. It does not take long for the students with more
experience around farm animals to warn the students around them to watch where they
step or to answer another student’s question or correct them when they are discussing
what they are doing. For example most children believe that if a cow has horns it must
be a bull so when our Jersey milk cow, with horns, comes up to eat corn out of the
children’s hands there is always a remark about a bull. The experienced students are
always quick to explain that because it has horns does not mean it is a bull. I have
observed this transfer of knowledge between students every year and the way it elevates
the confidence level of those students with agricultural knowledge.
Rockcastle County by all definition is a rural community with a population of
17,006 in 2012 (United States Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, 2014).
Agriculture still plays a major role in the county with 94,186 acres reported in
agricultural production according to the 2006 Kentucky Agriculture Statistics. With the
acres of land in agriculture more than five times greater than the population of the county
one would assume that the agricultural literacy level of our students would be
19
exceptional. The purpose of this study is to assess the agricultural literacy level of
students before the Sigmon Farm Tour and after participation to determine the cognitive
effect of the field trip experience on the students’ scores posttest and delayed posttest.
These findings will be used to address the effectiveness of the fieldtrip and identify
weaknesses in the program so weaknesses can be improved.
20
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate the effect of an agricultural farm tour on
the agricultural literacy level of the participants. The farm tour is a unique opportunity
for agriculture and natural resource related service organizations to educate the youth in
our community about the importance of agriculture. The results of the evaluation will be
used to improve the efficiency of the tour for future participants. The farm tour after
twenty years has become an anticipated event for the students, teachers, and the
community volunteers alike. During this time there have been numerous teacher
evaluations, but there has never been a study to determine what students are gaining from
the experience.
The effectiveness study of the farm tour will determine whether the objectives of
the program are being met. The Natural Resource Conservation Service, Sigmon Farms,
the Cooperative Extension Service and other contributing organizations put much time
and effort in making the farm tour as educating and meaningful as possible for the
students. This evaluation will assess the level the objectives are being accomplished.
In addition to those planning the farm tour benefiting from an evaluation, those
that sponsor the event will see that their donations are beneficial. Local businesses and
organization contribute personnel, time, and money so 4th graders get to experience and
gain a better understanding of agriculture. An evaluation will help to ensure the
continuous contributions from those currently contributing and will be advantageous in
the recruitment of contributors in the future.
Aside from planning and financial advantages to conducting this research, the
knowledge of the current agricultural literacy level of students is essential in reaching the
21
goal of an agriculturally literate population. It is important to assess the current level of
their agricultural knowledge in order to have a better grasp of where to begin this
enormous task. Assessing the effectiveness of agricultural literacy programs and
assessing agricultural literacy levels of the population are important goals in order to
determine the next steps in agricultural literacy.
TIMELINE
The project started in early August 2012 during the beginning of the Sigmon
Farm Tour planning stages. The program always had the objective of increasing the
agriculture literacy of participants but the program lacked the organization of a common
logic model. The contributing agencies that present at the farm tour sat down and
developed a logic model (Appendix A). The logic model was used as a guide to develop
the evaluation instrument. The teachers, who all have participated in the farm tour
before, were contacted and asked if they would be willing to give their students a pretest,
post-test and delayed post-test so that the program could be evaluated. The teachers all
agreed and were excited to see the results. The University of Kentucky’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB), which governs research on human subjects, gave approval to
conduct this study (Appendix B). A visual representation of the flow of events for the
research can be seen in figure 3.1. The pretest was emailed to the teachers the week
before the farm tour with instructions to administer the test during the week before the
farm tour and bring the tests with them to the farm tour. The pretests were collected from
the teachers as the students climbed on wagons to begin the farm tour. The farm tour
took place on October 17th from 8 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. The posttest was emailed to the
teachers along with a teacher evaluation on October 24th to be administered before
October 26th. The posttests and evaluations were picked up at the schools on October
22
29th. Teachers were emailed the delayed posttest on January 26th. Teachers were
instructed to give the test to students during the following week. Snow days delayed the
researcher from picking up the completed tests until February 12th.
Figure 3.1: Flow Chart of Events
POPULATION
The evaluation included the entire population of Rockcastle County 4th graders
participate in the Sigmon Farm Tour. Students from the three elementary schools in
Rockcastle County: Mt. Vernon, Brodhead and Roundstone participated. Fourth graders
were selected because the farm tour aligned with the common core standards for science
and fourth grade students are assessed in science. In accordance to the Institutional
Review Board requirements the students signed an assent form (Appendix C) and the
parents/guardians signed a permission form (Appendix D).
INSTRUMENT
The effectiveness of the program was evaluated using a pretest, posttest and
delayed posttest design (see appendix E). The tests were all anonymous in that the only
identifier on the test was the teachers name so that each class’ scores on all three tests
could be compared. The questions on the two posttests are identical to those on the
pretest, and tested the students on every station visited. The instrument was designed
Pretest One Week Field Trip One
Week Post Test Three Months
Delayed Post Test
23
using questions from the Food and Fiber Systems Literacy Test for students in grades 4-5
(Igo, 1999) and the National Ag in the Classroom’s Ag-knowledge test for grades 3-5.
The Food and Fiber systems Literacy Test with the grade grouped tests had reliability
coefficients ranging from 0.7763 to 0.9469. The National Ag in the Classroom’s Ag-
knowledge test had no information available as to its reliability coefficient (Teacher
Center Ag-Knowledge 3-5).
The test consists of 30 multiple choice questions that cover 6 agriculture
constructs food, fiber, business, natural resources, crops and historical trends (Appendix
F). The constructs were used to guide the discussion at the correlating fieldtrip stations.
For example, the natural resources construct questions were covered by the National
Resource Conservation Service station, and health and nutrition construct by the
Rockcastle County Health Department and Rockcastle Regional Hospital.
The science educators and presenters worked together to modify the instruments
so that test questions focused solely on concepts and materials presented during the field
trip. In order for the results to be accurately applied and interpreted it was vital that the
test be valid. The instrument then went to a panel of experts who also declared the test
valid (Appendix G). The science educators visited each station to ensure that the content
for each question was covered during the field trip thus further ensuring the validity of
the test instrument.
Reliability of the instrument refers to the repeatability or consistency of the
instrument to give us the same results over and over again assuming that what we are
measuring is not changed. The reliability of the instrument in this research is a limiting
factor in the generalization of this research. This instrument is specialized to measure
24
this experience. The objectives of this research study are to measure the cognitive effects
of this experience on students that participate and to use the information to improve this
field trip.
The students, as part of the field trip, had the opportunity to taste different foods
that directly related to the crops and livestock that the students experienced. This was
funded by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Education (S.N.A.P. Ed) in Rockcastle County. In order to give the
S.N.A.P. Ed. Coordinators some feedback for their reports three questions regarding
whether they tried a new food, if they liked it and would they be eating it at home was
added. Questions were also added to the delayed posttest asking students if they have
been eating the new foods at home and if they have been trying new foods since the field
trip experience. The researcher also wanted to see if the experience had changed the way
students thought about agriculture so the researcher added these two questions to the
delayed posttest. Has your thinking about agriculture changed as a result of the fieldtrip?
If so how has it changed?
DATA ANALYSIS
After administration, the completed tests were scored. The literacy tests were not
measured on a graded scale, but quantitatively as acquired knowledge. Each class’s
mean pretest, posttest and delayed posttest scores were compared to determine if
knowledge was gained and if so whether that knowledge persisted. No comparisons were
made between individuals, classes or among schools. IBM’s SPSS Statistics 20
predictive analytics software was used for analyzing procedures to determine differences
in pretest, posttest and delayed posttest knowledge scores.
25
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
The data collected from participants were used to determine if the annual Sigmon
Farm Tour was achieving its objective of increasing the agricultural literacy of students.
The data were collected through the use of a pretest, posttest and delayed posttest. The
tests were scored with each correct answer receiving 1 point, the total of 39 points
possible. The pretest had 183 participants, the posttest 187 and the delayed posttest 163.
The tests were completely anonymous so there was no way of determining if 100% of the
students actually participated in the farm tour or if a small percent were taking the tests
that did not participate. The drop in response rate from the pretest to the posttest was
contributed to several tests being thrown out due to being incomplete. Figure 4.1 is a
visual representation of agricultural literacy assessment events.
Figure 4.1: Flow Chart of Events
Pre‐Test One Week Field Trip One
Week Post Test Three Months
Delayed Post Test
The mean test scores of the pretest was 20.53 with a standard deviation of 4.57 with 182
test scored. The Posttest mean with 180 tests scored was a mean of 25.64 and standard
deviation of 4.58. This was an increase of 5.12 in the mean score. The delayed posttest
score mean was 24.71 with a standard deviation of 5.07 and 163 tests scored. This was still
an increase of 4.18 in test score means compared to the pretest and this was a minimum of
90 days after the fieldtrip. The results can be seen in Table 4.1.
26
Table 4.1
Test Score Means and Standard Deviation
Test
N Mean Standard Deviation
Pretest
182 20.53 4.57
Posttest
187 25.64 4.58
Delayed Posttest
163 24.71 5.07
The results when comparing the means of the pretest and posttest show an
increase in student agricultural knowledge after attending the fieldtrip. The fieldtrip
participation is a contributing cause for this increase. The retained agricultural
knowledge after 90 days has a slight limiting factor when wanting to attribute the results
to participating in the fieldtrip. There are no data on whether the class received any
further agricultural instruction in the classroom during the delay or if students’ interest in
agriculture increased leading to them searching out knowledge on their own or if the
fieldtrip is the only contributing factor.
The purpose of the study is to determine if the field trip increased the agricultural
literacy of these students so effect sizes are sufficient and suitable since this research is
not concerned with generalizability. Effect size is the magnitude, or size of an effect
between two groups. The effect size is a standard measure by which all outcomes can be
assessed and is not dependent upon sample size as is significance (Effect size, 2014).
Ultimately, what matters most is not statistical significance but whether the size of effect
is meaningful in a practical sense. Cohen’s effect size is used as a general rule of thumb
for interpreting
27
effect sizes: a “small” effect size is .20, a “medium” effect size is .50 and a “large” effect
size is .80. The results can be seen in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Effect size of pre/post/delay tests
Pretest Posttest Delayed Posttest
Pretest Cohen’s d: 1.12
Posttest Cohen’s d: 0.19
Delayed Posttest Cohen’s d: 0.87
Cohen’s effect size value (d=1.12) suggests a very high practical significance
between the pretest and posttest. The low Cohen’s effect size (d= 0.19) between the
posttest and delayed posttest is positive in that it suggests a small practical significance of
agriculture knowledge lost during the 90 days between the posttest and the delayed
posttest. The Cohen’s effect size value (d= 0.87) between the pretest and the delayed
posttest suggests a large practical significance in the agricultural knowledge gained
between the pretest and the 90 day follow up posttest.
The tests were broken down into 6 constructs that coincided with the fieldtrip
stations. The station was responsible for teaching the students about the particular
construct. The percentage of students who answered each construct question correctly
was averaged into a construct group percentage. The results can be seen in Table 4.3.
28
Table 4.3
Percentage of constructs correct on pre/post/delayed tests
Construct Pretest
% Correct (n=183)
% Change
Posttest % Correct (n=198)
% Change
Delayed Posttest % Correct (n=163)
Food
51.36% 44.14%
74.03% 9.44%
67.04%
Fiber*
84.7% 4.18%
88.24% 2.9%
90.8%
Business
39.81% 63.89%
65.24% 4.35%
62.4%
Natural Resources
52.64% 16.19%
61.16% 10.8%
54.55%
History/Trends 38.62% 47.93% 57.13% 10.15% 51.33%
Crops
60.48% 13.33%
68.54% 0.8%
67.99%
* Fiber construct limiting factor only one question on agricultural literacy test.
The percentage correct increased when comparing both the posttests to the
pretest across all constructs with an increase of slightly over 25 percentage points in the
business construct. The delayed posttest percentage decreased when compared to the
posttest in all constructs except fiber. Even though the percentages decreased in the
delayed posttest they were still higher when compared to the pretest. Fiber is the only
construct that if put on a graded scale the students’ scores on pretest, posttest and
delayed posttest would be passing. The limitation to this result is that there was only
question regarding fiber on the tests. Using this information it is easy to ascertain the
agricultural literacy levels of these students are fairly low.
According to the test results the fieldtrip was a contributing factor in increasing
agricultural knowledge on all constructs. These results also establish that there is a lot
of room for improving the fieldtrip. The fieldtrip, however helpful for increasing the
29
agricultural literacy of the students, should not stand alone as the only
agriculture education these students receive during the year.
The United States Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Education (S.N.A.P. Ed.) funded the student’s opportunity to taste
different foods that directly related to the crops and livestock the students experienced.
The S.N.A.P. Ed. Coordinators asked for an evaluation as well. The questions asked if
the students tried a new food, if the students liked it, and would the students be eating it
at home. The delayed posttest asked if the students had been eating the new foods at
home and if the students have been trying different foods since the field trip. The results
are listed in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4
S.N.A.P. Ed. Question Results
S.N.A.P. Ed questions
Yes
No
n % n % Did you try a new vegetable or food during the field trip? 95 51%
44 24%
Did you like the new vegetable or food you tried? 76 41%
20 11%
Will you be eating the new vegetable or food you tried at home?
65 35%
31 17%
Have you been eating the new food you tried during the field trip at home?
101 54%
55 30%
Have you been trying more different foods since the field trip?
127 68%
29 16%
According to these results the efforts spent to prepare and distribute the food
samples was time well spent. Three out of every four students tried a new food with
51% of those liking the new food and 35% willing to eat the new food again. At the 90
30
day delayed posttest 54% students reported they have eaten the new food since the field
trip and 68% students reported they have been trying more different foods since the
field trip.
The researcher also wanted to know if the experience had changed the way the
students thought about agriculture. The delayed posttest ask the students if their thinking
about agriculture changed as a result of the field trip and if so how? Seventy four
students took the time to express how their thinking changed. The answers were broken
down into the 6 test construct area and a general knowledge of agriculture was increased.
The results are listed in table 4.5.
Table 4.5
How Thinking Was Changed
n %
Agricultural knowledge increased or learned more
about agriculture 26 35%
Importance of food, eating healthy or nutrition 25 34%
Natural resources, soil, or water conservation 11 15%
Crop production, bees, corn 6 8%
Business, byproducts 2 3%
Trends and history 2 3%
Fiber 2 3%
Increased their knowledge of agriculture, realized the importance of agriculture or
they even learned what agriculture was included in 35% of student responses. The
importance of agriculture because it provided food was included in 34% of student
responses. The students discussed the need for eating healthy, and they were trying
different foods. The conservation of soil, water and farmland was referenced by 15%
31
students. The fact cotton provided people with clothing, the number of farmers and farms
were decreasing, and farms provide products that get turned into other products were all
referenced 3%.
32
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
The purpose of this study was to determine the cognitive effects of the annual
Sigmon Farm Tour on the agricultural literacy levels of participants and what aspects of
the field trip needed to be redesigned to be more effective. By conducting this study, the
cognitive effects of the field trip were determined. The results of this study will allow the
organizers to modify the field trip to optimize the cognitive effects.
The Sigmon Farm Tour did increase the agricultural literacy levels of the
participating students. The increase is not as large as the researcher expected but these
findings make a strong argument as to why the program should continue. The breakdown
of test scores into the 6 constructs illustrated that there is a great deal of room for
improvement. The efforts of the S.N.A.P. Ed. Coordinators to fix samples of different
vegetables and fruits resulted in 75% students trying a new food and 41% of them liking
it. The most encouraging result was that 68% of the students said they are now trying
different foods. The food tasting has helped to add that extra connection between what
the students seen growing on the field trip and the food they eat.
CONCLUSION
The Sigmon Farm Tour did increase the agricultural literacy levels of the
participating students. The students’ pretest scores on the agricultural literacy test with a
mean of 20.53 when converted to a standard grade scale had a score of 52.64%, a failing
score. The researcher expected a higher score when considering the rural and agricultural
nature of Rockcastle County. The posttest scores did increase to a mean of 25.64. This
increase was of very high practical significance when converted into Cohen’s effect size.
33
The agricultural literacy test was divided into 6 constructs: food, fiber, business,
natural resources, history/trends and crops. The percent correct in each construct did
increase after participation in the field trip. The fiber construct was the highest score but
that construct due to oversight by the research design only had one question on the
agricultural literacy test that dealt with the fabric being made from cotton. This is a
limiting factor as to the validity and reliability of the score. The lowest scoring constructs
were business, followed slightly by history/trends. These results demonstrate that there is
a need to improve the effectiveness of all stations.
The S.N.A.P. Ed. element of the field trip added a great linkage between crops
and foods eaten. The results from the evaluation were all incredibly positive. The
students tried, liked and are willing to keep trying different foods. Several students also
made comments about eating healthier since the field trip on the short answer question at
the end of the delayed posttest.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended the station teaching about fiber have examples of the different
fabrics and what farm product the fabrics are made from. For example cotton t-shirt with
a cotton plant that students can feel, leather boots with a piece of cow hide, a wool
sweater and a sheep that students can interact with. Incorporating the manufacturing
process would be ideal with someone spinning wool into yarn and then someone knitting
the yarn into a scarf for the students to see.
History/trends construct had the lowest pretest score with 38.62% correct. This
construct dealt with the history of agriculture from hunting and gathering of food to the
need to increase agricultural production in the future to supply the world with food and
34
products. Students do not understand the important role agriculture has played in the
history of the United States and the World and its crucial role in the future. The
researcher recommends a more visual representation of some of the important aspects of
this construct. The fact that one farmer feeds 155 people, the teacher will chose one child
to be the farmer and have the farmer hand out 155 bags of a certain kind of potato chips
to the students. While the students eat lunch explain how the one farmer grew enough
potatoes to provide those students with the chips. The teachers could begin a discussion
about what happens if that one farmer gets injured and has to stop growing. Breaking
down some of these statistics into visual representations that the students can understand
and grasp will help to convert that knowledge into concrete learning. A display of antique
farm equipment paired up with the newer version would assist the students in grasping
how technology and mechanization has spurred on higher agricultural production.
The business construct was scored slightly above the history/trends with a score
of 39.81%. Agriculture is big business when you include all the processors, distributors
and services that support agriculture. As a way to explain how many jobs and industries
are connected to agriculture a little role playing activity would be appropriate. The
presenter chooses one student to play the farmer. The farmer then chooses what they
produce and comes to the front of the group. The presenter then asks another student,
“What is something that the farmer is going to need to produce that product?” The
answer could be anything from machinery, seed, fertilizer etc. The presenter gives that
student a piece of red yarn 4 feet long. The farmer holds onto one end and that student
hold on to the other. The presenter then asks the next student, “What is the farmer going
to do with what he produces?” The answer will be some form of selling it to a buyer.
35
That student will come down and be given a green piece of yarn the same length. The
red strings will represent the inputs a farmer purchases and the green string represents the
outputs. The farmer then holds onto to one end and that student holds the other. The
presenter starts asking questions like what is the buyer going to do with what he just
bought, what other things the farm needs to purchase, where does the seeds come from,
and etc. With each answer another student and string is added to the activity until every
student is involved in the web like representation of how other industries are tied into
agriculture.
The crop construct was one of the higher scored constructs with 60.48% correct.
The students seem to understand that crops are raised for food but not that they are used
for energy, byproducts, and feed for livestock. An activity that would allow for students
to be broken into small teams of 4-5 students where the students could identify the farm
crop and the different ways it is used would be appropriate. For example, corn is used for
food, animal feeds, ethanol, and several byproducts. Each student on a team would be
given a crop such as corn, wheat, soybean, rice, and barley. The students would have 3
minutes to collect the correct products that each crop is associated with. Each crop would
have one product in each of the following categories: foods people eat, food livestock eat,
a byproduct of the crop, and the country or state that produces most of the crop.
The food construct dealt with where your food comes from and nutrition. The
students had a difficult time identifying the six basic food nutrients and the raw food that
processed food is derived from. They did enjoy learning that a tomato is actually fruit,
why it is categorized as a fruit, and getting to grind corn into corn meal. This activity
could be improved upon by having fresh corn bread salad for the students to taste. Corn
36
bread salad contains 5 of the 6 basic food nutrients: cornbread- carbohydrate, bacon-
protein, tomato and onion- vitamins, milk-minerals, mayonnaise-fat. Ask the students if
they can identify the 5 nutrients and the source. The students also enjoy trying to figure
out what they eat that does not come from a farm. It is very interesting to watch the
students dissect the answers of fellow students.
The natural resources construct had a 52.64% correct. Natural resources play a
key role in agriculture and sustaining human life. The students need to be able to
recognize natural resources and be able to analyze what natural resources are used in the
production of food, clothing and shelter. The use of eco-scapes and ground water models
demonstrate how water can be contaminated both by point source pollution and run off.
This could be expanded to include what practices agriculture has in place to protect
natural resources such as the development of disease resistant plants, no till planting,
plasticulture, drip irrigation etc. An activity that explains these practices then lets the
students discuss what natural resources the activity protects and what natural resources
the activity relies on to produce the agricultural product would be effective.
The cooperation of S.N.A.P. Ed. Coordinators has added a wonderful aspect to
the field trip. The students get to taste foods they can directly link to the crops seen
growing on the farm. Getting the students to sample the different foods is quite difficult
at times. A small contest among the students would be helpful in getting some of the
pickier eaters to try the different foods. A “Try-Athlon” where the students are
encouraged to “Go for the Gold” may be helpful. The students who try every sample
food would receive a gold medal, if students most of the samples they would receive
silver, and if they try a few a bronze. This would play on the competitive nature of kids.
37
IMPLICATIONS
Based upon this study and the major finding of this research, it is recommended
that the Sigmon Farm Tour not be a standalone event but unit of study with the actual
farm tour as the culminating event. Collaboration among the teams of 4th grade
educators and the event organizers, with a small effort among the agricultural
professionals, can make this more than a one day event. It can become an efficient and
effective agricultural literacy program. Orion and Hofstein (1994) studied factors that
influenced learning during science field trips and found preparation for the field trip to
be one of the most influential factors. The knowledge the students acquired before the
field trip related to the students’ cognitive readiness for the learning event. Using an
“overview” approach, students are presented with the key concepts, terms and principles
that they are likely to encounter on their fieldtrip (Gennaro, 1981).
The agricultural professionals can advise the educational professionals on areas
and ways to infuse agriculture into their core content. The use of agriculture to teach
science and mathematics concepts addresses the students question of why do I need to
know this; it gives them practical uses for that knowledge like perimeter, area, and the
water cycle. The agriculture professionals can help to develop real life scenarios the
teachers can use in the classroom. Social studies can be incorporated by illustrating the
way American culture changed with the advancement of agriculture. Literature can
possibly include the reading of experts from the book Grapes of Wrath.
During the week leading up to the field trip, the presenters could talk to the
classes about what their job entails, how they help agriculture, and what special training
or schooling is necessary. This will help the students feel more comfortable with these
38
presenters and topics during the field trip. Students who feel more comfortable are
more engaged and ask more questions. This interaction with agricultural and science
professionals could ignite an interest in those careers. As Rudman (1994) suggested,
“Field trips can create relevancy to science classroom learning when connected to the
outside world encouraging science interests and possibly increasing student aspirations
for science-related careers” (p.139).
Pre-trip orientations assist in balancing the novelty of the field trip. Research
has been conducted that studied the interaction between the novelty of the instructional
material and the novelty of the setting, and how much cognitive learning resulted.
Lubow, Rifkin, and Alck in 1976 conducted a study with children and rats that found
that both groups learned best when either new material was presented in a familiar
environment or familiar material was presented in a novel environment.
The educators can assist the presenters in improving their presentations by
helping them organize their presentations and adapt them to the 4th grade level. The
presentations are very haphazard in that the presenters do not have a set lesson plan or
outcome in mind. They tend to “shoot from the hip”. The presenters sometimes use
terms and words that are unfamiliar to students. The presenters also have a difficult
time explaining the technical ideas to students. The teachers could help the presenters
break these down into kid friendly pieces.
The program should be organized around a program such as the Food and Fiber
Systems Literacy Framework or the Farm to School Curriculum. The program should
have scheduled evaluations so the program can improve instead of remain static. The
evaluations should include not only the pretest and posttest design but teacher and
presenter evaluations that include suggestions on improving the program.
39
The conclusion of this study showed that a farm tour can increase the
agricultural literacy levels of participants and students living in rural, agricultural areas
are indeed agriculturally illiterate. Discussions among agricultural professionals,
agricultural educators, contributing agencies and local educators must focus on
agricultural literacy as the common goal. Implementing an entire unit of study to
increase the agricultural literacy of students should be cooperative effort between
educators, administrators, parents and tour organizers. The tour should be utilized as a
connection between the in class learning and the real world reality.
The Sigmon Farm Tour showed the effectiveness of activities that engage all the
students’ senses where the students get to touch, hear, smell, see and taste what they are
learning about. The knowledge gained through these experiential activities is more
concrete learning and harder to lose. The results from the delayed posttest showed that
there was a small practical significance of loss of knowledge after more than 90 days
following the farm field trip.
This pilot study was implemented to look at retention of information one week
and 3 months following an experiential field trip for agricultural literacy. This
investigation is a first step in determining what students gain from this informal
experience. This study should be the beginning of many program evaluations to
maximize the effectiveness of the farm tour.
Agriculturally literate students grow up to become agriculturally literate citizens.
An agriculturally literate population can identify the connection between agriculture and
their daily lives. These adults recognize the source of their food, clothing and shelter.
They realize the vast amount of byproducts that the industry supplies us with every day.
Agriculture is far more than just the farmer down the road. It is a driving force of the
40
U.S. economy and employees millions of people. Agriculturally literate adults support
their local farmers and have the knowledge to understand how political issues that affect
agriculture, affect them.
43
APPENDIX C: ASSENT FORM
ASSENT FORM
Effectiveness of a Farm Fieldtrip
The University of Kentucky and Bonnie S. Sigmon are interested in learning about children and agriculture. We are asking you and a lot of other students to help us find out about it. We need your help since you will be going to the 4th grade farm fieldtrip. If you agree you will take three tests, one before you go on the fieldtrip, one after the fieldtrip and one 3 months later.
These are not a test like you usually take in school. You won’t be graded on anything you do and the results will not affect your school grade. All you do is answer the questions the best you can.
Your teacher and parents and the other students will not know how you do. You will not put your name on the test just your teachers’ name will be on the test. There is no way for anyone to know which test is yours.
If something makes you feel bad while you are in the study, please tell your teacher. If you decide at any time you do not want to take the test, you may stop whenever you want.
You can ask your teacher or Ms. Bonnie Sigmon questions any time about anything in this study.
Signing this paper means that you have read this or had it read to you, and that you want to be in the study. If you do not want to be in the study, do not sign the paper. No one will be mad if you do not sign this paper or even if you change your mind later. You agree that you have been told about this study and why it is being done.
Signature of Person Agreeing to be in the Study Date Signed
44
APPENDIX D: PARENTAL PERMISSION
PARENTAL PERMISSION
The University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service is conducting a research study to find out how effective the annual 4th grade farm fieldtrip is on teaching students about the importance of farming and agriculture.
With your approval your child will be participating in a program evaluation research study to gauge the effectiveness of the farm fieldtrip through the use of pre and posttests. The students will take a short test before the fieldtrip, the day after the fieldtrip and 3 months after the fieldtrip to see how much the students learned. The test will not have any names on them so the student’s results will be completely unidentifiable. The tests will have no bearing on your student’s grades but the results will help to improve the effectiveness of this fieldtrip and other fieldtrips. The involvement in the study is voluntary and may be discontinued at any time. There is no penalty for not participating in the study; your child will still participate in the fieldtrip.
Yes my child may participate in the research study.
No my child may not participate in the research study.
Parent/Guardian’s Signature Date
Please return this form to your child’s teacher.
57
APPENDIX F: CONSTRUCT QUESTIONS
Test Constructs Correlating Questions
Food Construct Questions: 1,2,4,5,6,11,25
Fiber Construct Questions: 3
Business Construct Questions: 7,9,16,21
Natural Resources Construct Questions: 10,17,18,27,29
History/Trends Construct Questions: 13,14,15,23,26,30
Crops Construct Questions: 12,19,20,22,24,28
58
APPENDIX G: PANEL OF EXPERTS
4th Grade Educators: Julie Dowell Asher Deborah Cummins Cloia Collins Thomas Coffey Kristi Parkey Krystal Gatliff Brittany McClure Robin Bowman Breanna Adams Patsy Alcorn
University of Kentucky Career and Leadership Development
Dr. Rebekah Epps Dr. Stacy Vincent Dr. Richard Maurer
59
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Agriculture. (2014, February 6). Retrieved from Wikipedia, The Free Encylopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture
Agriculture Fact Sheet. (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2013, from National Ag Day:
http://www.agday.org/media/factsheet.php Ajaja, O. P. (2007). Teaching methods across disciplines. Agbor: Allwell Publications.
Bailey, T. H., Hughes, K. L. & Moore, D. T. (2004). Working knowledge: Work-based learning and education reform. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Ballantyne, R. P. & Packer, J. (2009). Introducing a fifth pedagogy: Experience-based
strategies for facilitating learning in natural environments. Environmental Education Research, 15(2), 243-262. doi:10.1080/13504620802711282
Balliel, B. D., Duran, M. & Bilgili, S.(2011). Effects of field trip-observation method on
the motivation of students. 2nd International Conference on new Trends in Education and Their Implications (pp. 1016-1020). Antalya-Turkey: Siyasal Kitabevi. Retrieved from http:// www.iconte.org
Balschweid, M. (2002). Teaching biology using agriculture as the context: Perceptions of
high school students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(2), 56-67. Retrieved from http://pubs.aged.tamu.edu/jae/toc43.html#twottp://
Barker, A. C., Jensen, P. J. & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Conversational learning: An
experiential approach to knowledge creation.Westport, CT: Quorum.
Barton, A. C., Koch, P. Contnento, I., & Hagiwara, S. (2005). From global sustainability to inclusive education: Understanding urban children's ideas about the food system. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1163-1186.
Bellah, K. A. & Dyer, J. E. (2007). Attitudes and stages of concern of elementary teachers'
toward agriculture as a context for teaching across grade level content area standards. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50 (2), 12-25. 25 Doi: 10.5032/jae.2009.02012
Braverman, M. T. & Rilla, E. L. (1991). Toxics, food safety, water quality "most
important": How California educators and ce directors view "agriculture literacy"programs.CaliforniaAgriculture,45(6),4-9. doi:10.3733/ca.v045n06p4
Bureau, U. S. (2013, June 27). State and County QuickFacts. Retrieved September 18,
2013, from State and County QuickFacts Rockcastle County, Kentucky: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/21/21203.html
60
Chapman, S. M., McPhee, P., & Proudman, B. (1992). What is experiential education? Journal of Experiential Education, 15(2), 16-23.
Council, N. R. (1988). Understanding agriculture: New Directions for Education. .
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=766&page=8
Creating access to healthy, affordable food. (2010, December). Retrieved from United
States Department of Agriculture: http://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/AccessHealthyFood.pdf
Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Collier.
DiFrancesco, P. (2011). The role of situated learning in experiential education: An
ethnographic study of the knowledge-construction process of pharmacy students during their clinical rotations. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Boston). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umb.edu
Doerfert, D. (2011). National research agenda: American association for agricultural
education's research priority areas for 2011-2015. Texas Tech University, Department of Agricultural Education and Communications, Lubbock, TX. Retrieved from http://aaaeonline.org/files/research_agenda/AAAE_National_Research_Agenda_(2011-15).pdf
Effect size. (2014, March 24). Retrieved from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_size Enderlin, K. J. & Osborne, E. W.(1991). Achievement and retention in middle school
science students in a laboratory oriented agriculture plant science unite of study. Central States 45th Annual Research Conference in Agricultural Education. Springfield, IL.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton &
Company.
Fenwick, T. J. (2003). Learning through experience: Troubling orthodoxies and intersecting questions. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Food deserts. (n.d.). Retrieved February 10, 2014, from United States Department of
Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service: http://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/foodDeserts.aspx
61
Food deserts. (2014, February 4). Retrieved from United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Services: http://www.ers.usda.gov/dataFiles/Food_Access_Research_Atlas/Download_the_ Data/Archived_Version/archived_documentation.pdf
Frick, M. K & Kahler, A. A. (1991). A Definition and the concepts of agricultural
literacy. Journal of Agricultural Education, 32(2), 49-57. Doi: 10.5032/jae.1991.02049
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should
teach. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Garrity, J. P., Pastore, K. & Roche, A. (2010). An evaluation of the effectiveness of science field trips and hands-on classroom activities at the Maria Mitchell Association, Nantucket, MA. Nantucket, MA: Nantucket Project Center. Retrieved from http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-121510-202420/unrestricted/MMA_Final_Report.pdf
Gennaro, E.D. (1981). The effectiveness of using previsit instructional materials on
learning for a museum field trip experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15,127-134.
Goh, E. (2011). The value and benefits of fieldtrips in tourism and hospitality education.
Higher Learning Research Communications, 1(1), 60-70. Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/liu/index.php/HLRC/article/viewFile/18/40
Gretzel, U. J., Jamal, T., Stronza, A. & Sanjay, K. (2008). Teaching international tourism:
An interdisciplinary, field based course. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 8(2-3), 261-282. Doi:10.1080/15313220802714562
Hofstein, A. R. & Rosenfeld, S.(1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal
science learning. Studies in Science Education, 87-112. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/881841/Bridging_the_Gap_Between_Formal_and_Informal_Science_Learning
Hubert, D. F. & Igo, F. C. (2000). environmental and agriculture literacy education.
Water, Air and Soil Pollution 123(1-4), 525-532.
Humphrey, J. K., Stewart, B. R. & Linhardt, R. E.(1994). Preservice elementary education majors' knowledge of and perceptions toward agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(2), 27-30. Doi: 10.5032/jae.1994.02027
Igo, C. G., Leising, J. G., & Frick, M. J. (1999). An assessment of agricultural literacy in
K-8 schools. Proceedings of the National Agricultural Education Research Conference, 26, pp. 49-61. USA.
62
Igo, C. L., Leising, J. G., & Frick, M. J. (1999). Food and fiber sytems literacy test for student 4-5. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Education, Communications and 4-H Development.
Jakubowski, L. (2003). Beyond book learning: Cultivating the pedagogy of experience
through field trips. The Journal of Experiential Education, 26(1), 24-33.
Knobloch, N. A. & Martin, R. A.(2000). Agricultural awareness activities and their integration into the curriculum as perceived by elementary teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(4), 15-26. Doi: 10.5032/jae.2000.04015
Knobloch, N. A., & Ball, A. L. (2003). An examination of elementary teachers' and
agricultural literacy coordinators' beliefs related to the integration of agriculture. Illinois State Board of Education and the Facilitating Coordination in Agriculture Education. Retrieved January 7, 2014, from www.agriculturaleduation.org
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge Books Kolb, A. K. & Kolb, D. A. (2006). Learning styles and learning spaces: A review of the
multidisciplinary applications of experiential learning in higher education. Chapter 3 (p45-91) in Sims, R. and Sims, S. (Eds.). Learning Styles and Learning: A Key to Meeting the Accountability Demands in Education. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as the source of learning and
development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kover, K. A., & Ball, A. L. (2013). Two decades of agricultural literacy research: a
synthesis of the literature. Journal of Agricultural Education, 54(1), 167-178. Doi: 10.5032/jae.2013.01167
Leising, J. G. & Zilbert, E. E. (1994). Validation of the California agricultural literacy
framework. National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, USA, 21(pp. 112-119).
Leising, J. G., Pense, S. L. & Igo, C. (2001). An assessment of student agricultural
literacy knowledge based on the food and fiber systems literacy framework. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 50(1), p. 140-145. Retrieved from http://jsaer.org/
Lowbow, R.E., Rifkin, B. & Alck, M. (1976). The context effect: The relationship between
stimulus preexposure and environmental preexposure determines subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 38-47.
63
Luckey, A. M., Murphrey, T. P., Cummins, R. L. & Edwards, M. B. (2013). Assessing youth perceptions and knowledge of agriculture: the impact of participating in an agventure program. Journal of Extension, 51(3). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2013june/rb3.php
Luthman, S. E. (2007, 06). Impact of agricultural literacy efforts on elementary students'
knowledge of production agriculture (Master's thesis). The Ohio State University, University Libraries, Knowledge Bank. Retrieved 02 24, 2014, from http://hdl.handle.net/1811/28357
Mader, S. (2000). Inquiry into life. New York: McGraw.
Malecki, C. L., Israel, G. D., & Toro, E. (2004). Using "ag in the classroom" curricula:
Teachers' awareness, attitudes and perceptions of agricultural literacy. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Science Extension: http://edis.ifal.ufl.edu/pdffiles/WC/WC05100.pdf
Meiers, N. J. (2010). Designing effective field trips at zoos and aquariums.
Izea.net/education. Retrieved from http://www.izea.net/edu
Meischen, D. L. & Trexler, C. J. (2003). Rural elementary students' understanding of science and agricultural education benchmarks related to meat and livestock. Journal of Agricultural Education, 44(1), 43-55. Doi: 10.5032/jae.2003.01043
Mesenburg, M. (2013, 17 October). Dig deeper why local food is better for you.
Retrieved February 2, 2014, from Rodale Institure: http://rodaleinstitute.org/2013/why-local-food-is-better-for-you/
Mezirow, J. (1978). Perspective transformation. Adult Education 28(2), 100–110. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformative theory of adult learning. In M. R. Welton (Ed.),
Defense of the lifeworld. New York: State University of New York Press.
Michele Ver Ploeg, V. B.-H. et al. (2009). Access to affordable and nutritious food- measuring and understanding food deserts and their consequences: report to congress. Washington, D.C.: Administrative Publication. Retrieved from http://ers.usda.gov/publications/ap-administrative-publication/ap-036.aspx#.UziHT00o-70
Michelson, E. (1996). Usual suspects: Experience, reflection and the (en)gendering of knowledge. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 15(6), 438–454.
64
Monk, K. I., Norwood, J. S., & Guthrie, M. J. (2000). Effectiveness of the southwest dairy center mobile classroom in promoting agricultural literacy. Texas Journal of shttp://tarleton.edu/Departments/txjanr/Volumes/Vol%2013%20-%202000/V13_2000_Art02.pdf
Moore, R. C. (1995). Children gardening: First steps towards a sustainable future.
Children's Environments, 12(2), 66-83. Morrell, P. D. (2003). Cognitive impact of a grade school field trip. Journal of Elementary
Science Education, 15(1), 27-36. Doi:10.1007/BF03174742
National Council on Agricultural Education. (1999). A new era for agricultural education: reinventing agricultural education for year 2020. Alexandria VA. Retrieved from http://www.teamaged.org/2020/home.htm
Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an
intregal part of science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93(6), 325- 331. Doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1993
Orion, N. H. & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific
field trip as an intregal part of the natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1097-1119. Doi:10.1002/tea.3660311005
Patrick, A. O. (2010). Effects of field studies on learning outcomes in biology. Abraka,
Nigeria: Department of Science Education, Delta State University. Retrieved from http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JHE/JHE-31-0-000-10-Web/JHE-31-3-000-10-Abst-PDF/JHE-31-3-171-10-1974-Ajaja%20O-P/JHE-31-3-171-10-1974-Ajaja%20O-P-Tt.pdf
Pawson, E. T. & Teather, E. K. (2002). "Geographical expeditions": Assessing the
benefits of a student- driven fieldwork method. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26(3), 275- 289. Doi: 10.1080/030982602200001986 4
Pense, S. L. & Leising, J. G. (2004). an assessment of food and fiber systems knowledge
in selected Oklahoma high schools. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(3), 86-96. Doi: 10.5032/jae.2004.03086
Pirog R, P. T., Van Pelt, T., Enshayan, K., & Cook, E. (2001). Food, fuel, and freeways:
An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. Ames, Iowa: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/pubs-and-papers/2011-06-food-fuel-and-freeways-iowa-perspective-how-far-food-travels-fuel-usage-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions.pdf
Pope, J. (1990). Agricultural literacy: A basic American need. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 62(9), 8. Retrieved from http://www.naae.org/links/agedmagazine/archive/Volume62/v62i9.pdf
65
Rasmussen, C. L. (2008). A causal-comparative model for the examination of an online teacher professional development program for an elementary agricultural literacy curriculum. . Logan UT: Utah State University.
Ricketts, K. G. & Place, N. T. (2005). Cooperation between secondary agriculture educators and exension agents. Journal of Extension, 43(6). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2005december/a6.php
Roberts, G. (2006). A philisophical examiniation of experiential learning theory for
agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(1), 17-29. Doi: 10.5032/jae.2006.01017
Rudd, S. L. & Hillson, J.H. (1995). Teacher characteristics related to the adoption of
agriscience curriculum in Virginia middle schools agricultural education programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36(2), 19-27. Doi: 10.5032/jae.1995.02019
Rudman, C.L. (1994). A review of the use and implementation of science field trips.
School Science and Mathematics. 94, 138–141. Russell, E. M., McCracken, D. J. & Miller, W. W. (1990). Position statement on
agricultural literacy. The Agricultural Education Magazine, 62(9), 13. Retrieved from http://www.naae.org/links/agedmagazine/archive/Volume62/v62i9.pdf
Sanders, D. A., & Armstrong, E. K. (2008). Understanding students' perceptions and
experience of a tourism management field trip: The need for a graduated approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 20(4), 29-37. Doi:10.1080/10963758.2008.10696926
Savoie, K. (2006). Experiential-based learning and peer teaching boost elementary
students' calcium intake. Journal of Extension, 44(6). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2006december/iw4.php
Stewart, R. (1989). The Rule of state leaders in agricultural education in developing and
promoting agricultural literacy programs. Proceedings of the Central States Seminar in Agriculture/Agribusiness Education, (pp. 43-48).
Tal, R. T. (2009). Reflective practice a means for preparing to teach outdoors in an
ecological garden. Journal of Science Teacher Eduction, 20, 245-262. Doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9131-1
Teacher Center Ag-Knowledge 3-5. (n.d.). Retrieved August 3, 2012, from National
Agriculture in the Classroom: http://agclassroom.org/teacher/agknow_35.htm
Trexler, C. J. & Hikawa, H.(2001). Elementary and middle school agriculture curriculum development: An account of teacher struggle at Countryside Charter School. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(3), 54-64. Doi: 10.5032/jae.2001.03053
66
United States Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts. (2014, January 14).
Retrieved from United States Department of Commerce: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/21/21203.html
United States Census Bureau, USA QuickFacts. (2014, March 27). Retrieved from United
States Department of Commerce: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Agricultural Trade Multipliers: Effects
of Trade on the U.S. Economy. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from USDA Economic Research Services.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013, April 14). Retrieved February 10, 2014, from Ag 101 Demographics: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/demographics.html
Walsh, B. (2008, June 12). Its not just genetics. Time Magazine. Retrieved from
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1813984,00.html
Wellington, J. (1990). Formal and informal learning in science: The role of the interactive science centres. Physics Education, 25(5), 247-252.Doi:10.1088/0031-9120/25/5/307
Whent, L. S. & Leising, J. (1988). A descriptive study of the basic core curriculum for
agricultural students in California. The 66th Annual Western Region Agricultural Education Research Seminar. Fort Collins, CO.
Wong, A. W. (2008). Useful practices for organizing a field trip that enhances learning.
Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 8(2-3), 241-260. Doi:10.1080/15313220802714539
67
VITA
Bonnie S. Sigmon grew up in Mt. Vernon, Kentucky, and attended Rockcastle
County High School before receiving her Bachelor of Science in Agronomy and Natural
Resources at Eastern Kentucky University. Bonnie began her career with the Kentucky
Cooperative Extension Service in 2004 as the Southeast Kentucky Vegetable and Small
Fruit associate. Bonnie is currently a county extension agent for horticulture in
southeastern Kentucky. She still resides in her hometown of Mt. Vernon, Kentucky,
where she assists her father and sister in the continued operation of their family farm.